On 10/4/2010 7:15 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose thus wroted:
>> Bob specifically refers to prints, not camera, not software, not printer,
>> etc - finished photographic prints. That's his final product, the true
>> measure of the quality of the process, from seeing the subject out in the
>> world to seeing it in a print. I'm under the impression from your many posts
>> and occasional rants that such is the case for you, too. And for Chris C.
> Moose, that would definitely be the case. It's all about the final
> product--which for argument sake is light-reflective flat art. A print.
Glad I was clear. :-) I think there are other valid display media, and they
will become more important in the future,
but I wanted to stay with Bob's point that the appearance at any intermediate
stage is not necessarily an indicator or
how the end result will look, or how it will compare to results from other
sources/methods.
>> Bob used to do some of his photography using a view camera with 4x5 film, so
>> he is no stranger to LF, let alone MF, film. He now uses a Nikon D3.
> And Bob's experience with it all shows as he tends to use the D3 like a 4x5
> camera. That disciple comes through in his work and helps make it as good as
> it is.
Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. I was only pointing out that he
isn't speaking about larger film formats
without experience.
>> I will say that in my opinion, Bob's recent prints from the Nikon are finer
>> prints than any others we saw, including all but maybe, maybe, a couple of
>> B&W 8x10 contact prints in the museum show.
> Mighty fine praise there. This goes to show that Bob isn't just an excellent
> photographer, but also an excellent image processor and printer. Basically
> you've put him up there with Ctein.
Wow! I lied unintentionally through a memory fart. I DID buy another
photographer's image not long ago, a dye transfer
print by Ctein through TOP's special offer. Now where the heck did I put it for
safekeeping? Ah, there it is. Although
I've seen several Ctein images on the web, I've only seen this one print in
person, Competing Ferns
<http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/09/competing_ferns_small.jpg>
I didn't really mean to directly 'rate' Bob against other photographers,
processors, printers. Hence (along with lack of
memory) the lack of photographer/printer names in my discussion. But based on
the sample of one Ctein and many Whitmire
prints, yes. That may be a bit less unfair than it sounds, as the Ctein was
specifically selected to be offered as an
example of the art of dye transfer printing.
I also wonder if the development of high end inkjet printers with pigment inks
may mean that dye transfer simply isn't
necessary any more.
>> I've been a fan since I first saw his prints. Still, I could fault some
>> prints technically ...
> Which is a clear indication of Bob's continued development as a photographer,
> image-processor and printer. This may be a bigger factor than any of us
> realize.
I think it is indeed a big factor.
> I won't dwell much on the rest of your monolog, but will say that I think
> what has happened here is Bob's work (which sounds quite exceptional--I know
> that what I see on the webpages is extremely good) tends to match your own
> vision and sensitivities.
Generally, yes. But don't tar Bob with a brush meant for me. :-)
> It is no secret that you dislike grain
Not unfair, if a bit simplistic. I view grain (and digital noise) as artifacts
of image capture technology. Had the
original photographic processes not been grainy, we would not have grown up
with grainy images. And I believe most of us
would view grain as a special effect. That, in any case, is how I view it,
artifact and special effect. It seldom adds,
and often detracts, from my enjoyment of most images. Still, it has a place in
adding texture, the appearance of greater
detail/sharpness, and so on. I often leave some grain or noise, less than you
would, rather than reduce detail, real or
apparent, to the look of plastic, at least to my eye. And, to beat a dead
horse, I must assume that my higher than
average visual acuity has an effect on what I 'see' and enjoy in a photograph.
> and that you lean towards the "California Look".
I assume that label is meaningful to some, but it doesn't signify to me. I can,
of course, guess, from our previous
discussions, but the label isn't part of my knowledge base.
> This isn't a criticism, but it does show differences in how we perceive
> images. I like grain and I usually prefer subtle over the overdefining
> contrasts and colors. But that's me and that's you.
Yes, I generally prefer clarity over underdefined contrast, especially local,
and muddy colors. ;-) I know some folks
have commented on my use of increased saturation. In fact, I almost never do
that directly. The colors come with the
other things I do. I've even, gasp, lowered saturation on admittedly rare
occasions.
It's hard to say, as I've printed very little lately, so I am comparing images
on my screen to prints - but I think it's
probably fair to say that Bob's prints have less of the "Calif. Look" than my
images. Some are bright, some soft, with
muted colors, depending on the subjects.
> Both are right--but both serve different purposes.
One makes me happy, the other makes you happy! :-D
> Is one better than the other? That's like arguing over what kind of rice is
> better--it all depends on the type of meal.
D'accord
> Anyway, what I'm saying is that Bob has managed to create prints that match
> your sensitivities perfectly. Does this make his capture medium of choice
> (Nikon D3) better than anything else out there--especially film? For a
> specific look and end result--possible and highly likely! Obviously, he has
> achieved a level of "perfection" with the entire imaging chain which is
> optimized for input/process/output. On the flip side, I've also seen a level
> of "perfection" achieved by individuals using an entirely different
> input/process/output.
Of course. Sticking with the original question/issue, though, my point is that
the appearance of an image straight out
of camera or scanner doesn't necessarily mean much about the true quality of
the image captured or what a print will
look like.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
